Francisco Lira v. Essentia Insurance Company
20-12788
| 11th Cir. | Jul 6, 2021Background
- In 2018 Lira sued Essentia in Florida state court; Essentia removed the case to federal court.
- In 2019 the parties filed a stipulation that Lira was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and that the court would retain jurisdiction to determine the amount.
- On July 23, 2019 the district court administratively closed the case and stated it would retain jurisdiction to determine fees and costs.
- The parties could not agree on the amount; Lira moved to reopen on Sept. 13, 2019 (denied Sept. 14 but the court invited a motion for fees).
- Lira filed a motion for entitlement to fees and costs on Oct. 8, 2019; the magistrate judge recommended denial as untimely under S.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.3(a)(1) (60-day deadline), and the district court adopted that recommendation.
- Lira appealed, arguing Local Rule 7.3 did not apply because there was no final judgment or order giving rise to the fees claim and that his entitlement-only motion should not be governed by the Rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lira) | Defendant's Argument (Essentia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Local Rule 7.3(a)(1) | No final judgment or "order giving rise" exists, so the Rule does not apply | The July 23, 2019 order ratified the stipulation of entitlement and thus triggered the Rule | The July 23 order was the "order giving rise to the claim," so Rule 7.3(a)(1) applies |
| Timeliness / Abuse of discretion | Lira’s filing (Oct. 8) should be treated as timely or not governed by the Rule | The 60-day clock ran from July 23; Lira’s motion (filed after Sept. 23) was untimely | District court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely |
| Scope of Local Rule (entitlement-only motions) | Motion for entitlement only is not a motion "pursuant to Local Rule 7.3" and thus outside the Rule’s scope | Local Rule 7.3 broadly covers motions for attorneys’ fees and costs, including entitlement motions | Rule 7.3 applies broadly; district court permissibly applied it to Lira’s motion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McLean, 802 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion review of district court’s application of local rules)
- Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2008) (courts give great deference to district courts’ interpretation of local rules)
- Herrera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 811 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2016) (canon of construction: disjunctive terms are given separate meanings)
- Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of fee-denial decisions)